Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia tended to echo Vladimir Putin in his thinking about homosexuality, in that he saw no principled difference between “child molesters” and “homosexuals”, as if he were blind to the idea of consent (and the whole idea of age-of-consent laws). That disturbing point is made by Richard A. Posner and Eric J. Segall in an op-ed, “Scalia’s Majoritarian Theocracy”, Thursday December 3, 2015, on p A35 of the New York Times, link here. The writers are discussing Scalia’s notorious dissent in the 2003 “Lawrence v. Texas” case.
There is discussion of Scalia’s idea that courts cannot overrule majoritarian votes concerning society’s past “moral opprobrium” on apparent homosexual behavior, or the desire of parents to keep the distraction of homosexual values away from their children, or of bosses to keep it away from customers. None of this seemed rational or copacetic in all the decades that it had ruled legal thought (Bowes v. Hardwick). It always seemed to me that people believed that if homosexuality were allowed to appear legitimate (as a “choice”), a lot of “marginal” men would decide not to marry and have children, and would not be able to fit into the reserves of supporting other family members with the required tender intimacies when necessary. That’s certainly behind Russian thinking today.
But with gay marriage (Obergefell), this has been a three-way (not two way) debate on individualism. It’s possible to argue that everyone should participate in raising kids and in caring for parents (filial responsibility) without concern that everyone experience conventional sexual intercourse capable of procreation.
It's also worthy of note today the media reports that all combat roles have been opened to women in the military. This is certainly going to lead to more objection to those who do not like to see gender bending.