1)Enforceability is the problem.
2)I’m in favor of getting rid of the minimum drinking age.
3)Better to inspire morality than try to force through laws.
4)I don’t know if there is more or less sodomy.
So... how low a percentage of enforceability should a law have, before it's taken from the books? 50%? 10%? Anything less than 100%? It really sounds as if you're advocating a Jean-Jacques Rousseau-ian type of "remove all laws, and everything will be idyllic". Please tell me I'm mistaken!
2)I’m in favor of getting rid of the minimum drinking age.
With all due respect to LDS and other teetotalers, the drinking age is a matter for prudential judgment, not a moral absolute (like the prohibition against sodomy is, for example). Apples and oranges. The topic here is sexual perversion, and Trump's consent to allow it in public places where women once felt free to expect reasonable privacy from voyeurism of men (e.g. bathrooms, showers and locker rooms, etc.)
Better to inspire morality than try to force through laws. Those are the only two options? A police state, or else no laws at all? I don't think so. Why can't we have BOTH... and keep the laws on the books, at least for the sake of those who don't feel "sufficiently inspired" to avoid the immoral behavior, just yet?
I don’t know if there is more or less sodomy.
My point is that laws have a tendency to discourage that which they forbid (and punish), and encourage things which they permit. In this case, a public announcement that "the US Government allows anyone and everyone to marry whatever sex they like" (or to use whatever bathroom they like... I expect that's coming soon, especially with Scalia gone) really does have a tendency to encourage that behavior, since those who were previously wary of doing so out of fear of punishment, public shame, etc., have now gotten a pat on the back and a big, "Go get 'em, tiger!"
If you don't think that a public and official "green light to indulge in [x] which was previously forbidden", then I really don't know what to tell you... other than to ask you to look at (for example) the NUMBER of abortions in 1970, compared to 2016. Those who think that Roe v. Wade didn't affect things for the worse are simply delusional. The same principle applies, here... and we have ringside seats. It'd be great if Trump could recognize that... or care, or... something.