According to liberal principles, the closeting of homosexuality is wrong because it is just one perfectly normal form of sexual expression among many. When mean old reactionaries like me come along and remind people that sodomy is counted among the sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance, they assume that we are either stuck in the past or planning something really brutal and oppressive.
Force has nothing to do with it though. It's a matter of accepted public principle. According to traditional principles, right relations between men and women are one of the basic pillars of social order and civilization. For that reason, homosexual relations are radically contrary to the relations that ought to exist between people. It is treason against civilization, against nature, and against nature's God. It is as bad as liberals think discrimination is.
If liberalism and sexual libertinism are irrational and inhuman - and they are - then they won't last. It's a sure thing they won't last if only because societies which embrace those principles tend not to reproduce themselves. When traditional views of sexual morality once again come to the fore, then we will see a smooth transition to the recloseting of homosexuality.
The chief rejoinder to the traditional arguments against homosexual activity is, "What business is it of yours what two consenting adults do in private?" This objection is ridiculous on its face and the question is never asked in good faith. Consider: if what two consenting adults do in private is of no concern to anyone then why do we care about marital fidelity? Why do paternity tests, crimes of passion, child support payments, sex education classes, and AIDS prevention programs exist at all? Private acts seldom remain private, particularly when something as fundamental to human relations as sex is involved. Sex leads to, among other things, romantic love, lifelong commitments, children, STDs, divorce, and occasionally murder. All of these things are of concern to people not immediately involved.
We are social creatures, and when someone acts in a way radically contrary to social custom he should expect to be treated differently. Liberals are offended by the existence of racists even if the racist never physically harms anyone. If the racist claimed that his racism was the defining characteristic of who he was, the very core of his identity, and he demanded that society recognize and bless his racism, the liberal would cry a thousand times no.
Traditionalists feel about homosexual acts what liberals feel about homophobia. Who turns out to be right in the long run depends on who has the stronger grasp of human nature. We Christians have a divine guarantee on who's right. But as the history of the kingdom of Israel tells us, it's the human condition that we always have to learn the hard way. In the mean time, people are free to delude themselves into believing that same-sex "marriage" exists. I can't stop them any more than I can stop them from believing in the existence of round squares or colorless color. But like the masthead of this blog says, I don't live by lies. Nothing Caesar says or does will ever make me submit to this lie.