Issues of sexual behavior are very like issues of entitlement income, for they represent a virtual schism of responsibility versus welfare; an MMORPG for us to explore move and counter-move between our deepest convictions upon duty and freedom. The libertardian aspect is again present, and again laughable, for the manchild sees no problem with an endless free-ride, glutting oneself on the resources of a reproductive society while poopdicking nauseous cul-de-sacs of disease and brokenness, as though it doesn't matter. A majority of concessions of or to homosexuality these days tend to follow this line, severing the trans-individual nature of the person in society. A pro-homosexual, for example, tends to take modern civilization for granted, assuming that the morality of homosexuality can be considered in full severance from the necessity of its roots. For example, modern homosexual-apologists tend to phrase their scenarios of all types based on the assumption that reproduction will continue, and society not become a refuge solely of aging non-reproducers, which would result not only in the death of said aging non-reproducers, but perhaps more importantly, their unassisted, neglected, bedsoring elder years. "Well, of course somebody's going to have kids," goes the rationale. And those kids will be fed, housed, taught, become experienced caregivers, and then accept virtual currency for caring respectfully for bedridden elders, goes the implied argument. Considering the minor frenzy conjured over aging societies concurrent with immigration scams in recent years (currently c. 2018), the concept of a society even more expressly devoted to not reproducing itself being unconcerned about the annual demographic dynamics of expanding buttfuckery is facetious at least.
Pseudo-masculinist behavioral specifics aside, the prevailing assumptions of homosexual advocacy are similar to those encountered from every individualist-materialist perspective over the ages. Those who choose isolation, celibacy, spinsterhood, et cetera, are similar to modern homosexualist-advocates inasmuch as they presume the existence of a society which will endure and expand in order to give heft to their computerized retirement portfolios. All of the nice things that we may have or expect are, compared to the hypothetical state of nature, dependent upon the production and maintenance of as-yet unborn or unmatured individuals, depending on our predictions of our ability to maintain individualist-materialist enjoyment status.
It is quite disingenuous to discuss the morality of committing any material act, even "eating a chocolate treat every Friday night," severed from the necessary supporting concept of "a cyclically ongoing population." There is a sound planetary morality in a sensationist approach to homosexuality, chocolate-consumption, or opportunistic violent robbery, wherein "take what you can because you can" may be widely presumed unpleasant, but is at least internally consistent. The pro-homosexual assumption, "You will keep having babies who will support my economic needs when I am unable, based on a protracted time-benefit analysis forming an economic system which you will teach them and which they will police for my benefit" is highly problematic. Without it, the discussion could enter different realms, such as, "The voluntary childless participants in a society will pay a social maintenance tax in lieu of their child-raising obligations." Likely there is a strong link between pro-homosexuality and "the state should assume responsibility for raising the next generation" as a misguided attack in the concealed battle over assessment rates, e.g., severing children from parents and attaching them instead to the futuristic superstate, in conjunction with generally-assessed taxes (the much smaller components which can be attributed to helping the members of such society, rather than to other, more tax-essential ends) supporting such state monitoring, establishes trends which, as the years roll by, can be used to produce a much more pro-childless state of negotiation even if such happens within the context of a reasonable society considering the problem caused by homosexuality's reliance on perpetual demographics.
A "free action" approach to homosexuality, without an interest in personally performing or aping confident performance of the said acts, suffers from the same dearth, whether or not it grows more or less intense in its passion. Like chocolate-eating, or any other preference for collecting positive sensations, any presumption of social continuation offers the same taint. "Let them fuck only dudes' asses because I don't care" ignores the necessity of maintaining society as much as does "I'm a dude and I only want dudes!"
Alongside the sexual variety of libertardianism comes its evil authoritarian nemesis, where equally foolish, and often (but not always) curiously intense, faux-ascetics attempt to ban spicy food or the waltz. Mainstream media sex, a.k.a. men having sex with men (MSM), often earns ire quite inappropriately, not for its inability to address or satisfy the sponsorship of a cyclically propagating society, but but for its sheer grossness, which though an easy target, is irrelevant to the question. Any number of examples have been made over the recent years likening the attractiveness of MSM behavior to heterosexual behavior, either for its production of social burdens of various kinds, or the pseudo-insightful meaningfulness of the inherent unpleasantness of ass-filling or its associates. Which is to say, if a fat aging woman has some variety of perverse sex, ends up uncertainly pregnant, gives a certainly expensive birth, then produces either a suddenly- but expensively-perished offspring, or a druggie mugger killed by police at 23, it is as offensive, and more important, far more socially costly, to permit the latter; and yet, the elaborate monitoring that would cause it to never happen has social ramifications that would prove far more harmful to a group's reproductive success. Sowing draconian ground destroys the individual, while fertile ground does not require, indeed shies from, the draconian breeding camp, which is to say that establishing some giant prison camp where people breed beneath posters that scream "Duty!" is far less productive and far more problematic than even today's society, while supporting a couple weirdos' freedom to commit buggery as part of supporting a wholesale fertile society produces net results far greater than an alternative. Indeed, without a hostile media and legislative apparatus, homosexuality becomes, socially, a non-problem, as it was a bit over two thousand years ago. Appeals to Yahweh's morality are ineffective, as it has been changed to correspond to the destruction of other cultures, whereby the mandate on buggery becomes "for" rather than "against."
To join the two sides, or at least effect better heated discussions, we might at once attack sensationalism and irresponsibility. Again we turn to taxes, where the pro-homosexual would need to become a national-natalist in the "old" sense, melding persistent genetic moralities with individual choice, and thereby paying tribute to the font of all material pleasure, while the staunchest anti-homosexual would need to give up the enemy's directives in the Torah, embrace an older national natalism, and remove the metaphorical schnoz from the bedroom.