I agree. But when the outcome is much mayhem and death should we still be concerned? What about the State? From the article, I doubt privacy is as important as the liberty being exercised in determining the legitimatcy of any act and specifically, acts that don't 'harm' others in some deliberate manner.
But since when did it become acceptable for people to go out and harm themselves? That is why the SCOTUS has nullified the DOI Preamble, for now privacy is more important than inalienable rights. Supposedly, a person can consent to become a zombie with no free will or ability to self-govern or become a slave of another, and hence have no liberty, so long as it is done in private. Supposedly, a person has a right to murder themselves, so long as it is all done behind hallowed closed doors.
Truly, the tyrants waiting in the wings are applauding the nullification of the DOI.
I agree, the SCOTUS majority made it clear that for homosexual acts to be illegal it "demeaned" "homosexual" persons. [I use " around "homosexual" because there is no actual class of people who are homosexual. It is a type of act that can be engaged in or not, willingly.] Definitely moral value judgement there. And if a person with an open mind studies up on what homosexuals do, with whom, how many, under what circumstances, how much more prone they are to molest/rape/seduce the young, and the MANY disease they spread, it's no contest. There is a reason sodomy has been illegal and considered morally wrong throughout history (with some notable exceptions).
And now the arrogant justices are telling us that they are the moral arbiters. Knowledge stolen by illusion.