When will the hammer fall?
For many scrubbed thousands of years, homosexuals and homosexuality were not a significant cultural issue and/or cultural problem. We never knew about those who knew how to behave, and those who didn't were crushed in bogs, until Jesus arrived to shelter them in monasteries with vows to receive orphans, to confess boys, to never touch girls, and to never punish boy-touchers. The results of these incredibly successful, foresighted attacks have been powerful, though at a time-scale slow enough that Nu Euros only (begin to) recognize (a small part of) it "too late."
And then, like someone who didn't see the light turn green seven seconds ago but has now heard the honking, they accelerate away from the intersection really fast, as though that proves they were paying attention all along. "Make extramarital innuendo illegal again!" And they decide sex is bad, which was the goal of over-promoting it. Because the prime global havens for child-rape before the advent of nonprofits--the great institutions of education and worship--were also, non-coincidentally, the first anti-sex organizations to appear in Europe. The Nu Euro falls for the false-dichotomy trick again when he looks to the high acolytes of buggery to renew his civilization because of their earlier publicized history of either condom-condemnation or condom-promotion; the relationship between prurient meddlings is directly correlated.
Both Huxley and Orwell addressed sex in their dystopias. Huxley posited the destruction of sex by the profusion of sex, where character, privacy, mental and physical intimacy, and other aspects of love and/or pleasure were destroyed by their nominal excess, in the way that our extravagant network of newspaper stands and movie-feeds destroys creativity and entertainment by making it seem that there is actually an overabundance of those things. Orwell was more literal. Along with Huxley, he described the asexual, laboratory-style creation of children, but he also propagated his Evil Regime with Anti-Sex Leagues, offering an approach toward the strike against Eros that would've been more honest than would've been effective--a fact which he later admitted to Huxley.
Living in a more apparently Huxley-ish future, we've tended to ignore the insights of both types of dire prognosticator. Whether we've ignored Orwell more, or Huxley more, is debatable, given that Orwell's blunt approach to the subject may make him appear more naive, whereas Huxley's more subtle approach is often confused with a condemnation of the Eros he defends, and therefore he is often popularly viewed as leading the strike. Indeed, amidst today's seemingly bacchanalian abundance of food- and sex-products, we tend to fail to distinguish between McDonald's, Game of Thrones, and what they have replaced; the pagan gods of fertility and wine have long been murdered by their opposites, and it is unjust and stupid of us to perpetuate our belief otherwise.
Orwell only seems discredited based on our false assumptions from the present, anyway. He well recognized the aim of the processes then forming globally, for part of Winston's secret pleasures with Julia in 1984 was an act so "simple" as eating strawberry jam. Confronted with today's noxiously tart imitation of mass-fruit itself, let alone what passes for jam, Orwell didn't go far enough, but his connection of dystopian tyranny with being expressly anti-pleasure was apt.
This one asks when the hammer will fall because ritually strangling the corpse of Eros' last remaining succubal retainer--perhaps during an orgy, to make the insult greater--is a necessary part of the decomposition process. The older European practices of swiftly executing child-molesters and other socially-disruptive perverts was ended by Christianity, and we have been mistaken in viewing this as an act in service of pleasure, defiance, individuality, et cetera. In the long term, we will come to see that the reason for popularizing non-reproductive sex, affairs, homosexuality, porn, transsexuality, et cetera, was not, by any means, to promote any of these things, but to destroy them.
Consider marriage: a natural, human, loving, pleasurable, civilizational given which, once turned over to the Jewish-conceived, Turkish-enabled religion of "Christianity," and to the Jewish-conceived, Nu-Euro-enabled mini-globalism known as "the nation-state," became what it is now: a bureaucratic registry severed from any hints of its former self, both devaluing and destroying the communities and privacies that had birthed it.
As state- and church-registered marriage destroyed what was there before, so irrevocably that we would laugh at the inconceivability of those habits if we could even imagine or recognize them, the cloying Jenomic acceptance of other aspects of sexuality will sound their eventual death knell. Anyone lured into expressing or confessing her or his inclinations only makes it easier. We might have once bogged a murderer or a rapist, but, like establishing gun registries for non-criminals, our current structures are designed to help a mass-mind perceive pleasure, independence, creativity, self-restraint, and joy, wherever they may be found, and better effect their collective dampening.