(controversy warning) (reposed from original site)
[I] would argue that the gay community successfully suppressed the visibility of its promiscuous behavior once the chance for enfranchisement became possible.
Furthermore the leadership changed the message from a request for tolerance of public promiscuity to one in favor of equal rights, marriage and stability.
With the genetic, or at least in-utero cause of homosexuality identified, the idea of putting youth at risk disappeared – leaving only the problem of promiscuous behavior.
[T]he purpose of boycotting is to suppress undesirable behavior in favor of beneficial norms. Marriage is one of our most unnatural states, but most beneficial norms. In fact our moral codes are dependent, first and foremost, upon our family structures – which is why different family structures cannot politically cooperate. Different family structures means different property rights and different demands for state intervention.
Since it was promiscuity that violated norms, and the general fear of further attacks on the family that mainly drove resistance, then BOYCOTTING WORKED.
That’s important to grasp. BOYCOTTING WORKED BETTER than libertarian universal particularism. WE WERE WERONG.
[C]onservatives are right on norms, and we are not. Cosmopolitan (rothbardian) ethics cannot compete against traditional familial ethics. They can only undermine the hight trust society and require that we return to totalitarianism.
Freedom requires homogenous ethics. Heterogeneity simply increases the necessary demand for teh state.
BOYCOTTING is a necessary device for enforcing the heterogeneity of norms that make the high trust society, and low demand for state intervention possible.
That’s just how it is.
Period. This isn’t a preference. It’s a logical necessity.