the statute serves to stigmatize gay people as "deviants" and reinforces unfounded but widely held stereotypes about them. This process results in prejudice -- often called "homophobia" -- against lesbians and gay men. . . . A small group of gay people, however, do not successfully cope with the prejudice against their sexuality, and are more troubled and dysfunctional. This clinically observed psychological condition is known as "internalized homophobia." By stigmatizing gay people, the statute under review tends to foster internalized homophobia and its self-destructive effects.

This whole subject is really about the deconstruction of socio-emotional cognitive concepts and schemas, and the traditions and mores honored worldwide and cross-culturally over millennia. My biggest beef with the current “homosexual” nature-versus-nurture dialogue is that it represents an attempt by the intellectually elite (and the intellectually dishonest) to redefine society and government in terms of their choosing -- and which happens to be pretty damn liberal. Most cultures, and most people, realize that the human sexual response is fairly plastic (I mean look how it can be molded into fetishes), but that doesn’t mean that atypical sexual response patterns are something any society should condone (toleration is a different matter). As I read Blackstone, to the extent the behavior is purely private, it remains a matter between the person and the Creator. To the extent it becomes public, the behavior is subject to the Rule of Law, and the traditions and mores of society.