(This article is written from a Propertarian point of view)
It is fairly easy to decide natural law on the matter of homosexual conduct, that it is lawful so long as it is voluntary, fully informed, warrantied, and free of negative externalities, and this is completely possible in every system I can think of allowing for both private and common property. Different commons (common property) allowing for the tolerance of different degrees of self-expression, and different ways of enforcing the limits of self-expression, may be produced contractually. How insurance companies and socialized healthcare handle the costs of the physical illnesses which homosexuals commonly acquire, to prevent them from creating certain negative externalities can be contractually enumerated. I think it is likely that a vaccine for HIV will be developed sometime in the next century, eliminating the need for the very expensive preventative measure PrEP.
Regarding the etiology of homosexuality, I think that it results from a systemic condition which affects organ morphologies, most often towards reversed sexual dimorphism. This hypothesis appears to be supported both by differences in facial contours (Wang and Kosinksi, 2017), which are determined by musculoskeletal development and for the structure of the brain (Savic and Lindström, 2008). This systemic condition could, in turn, be caused by genetics, and/or by hormones which affect gene expression in development. A correlation has been observed between childhood sexual abuse and reported homosexuality, especially in males (Friedman et al., 2011), but there is also a correlation between the childhood sexual abuse of males and gender-nonconformity regardless of the sexual orientation of the victim (Xu and Zheng, 2015). Given that homosexual males are more gender atypical in certain outwardly visible morphologies, habits, and neural activity (which influences personality) than heterosexual males (Wang and Kosinksi, 2017; Savic and Lindström, 2008), it logically follows why they would be at a higher risk for childhood sexual abuse than heterosexual males given these findings (Xu and Zheng, 2015). It is also difficult to argue that psychic trauma such as child molestation will lead to consistently different musculoskeletal morphologies, which is apparent in the consistently different facial contours of homo and heterosexuals (Wang and Kosinksi, 2017). As far as I can tell, the most parsimonious assessment of this information is that the development of sexual orientation is probably in-utero and that it precedes any psychic trauma, not the other way around.
Given the reversed sexual dimorphism present in at least a very significant number of homosexuals, many of them may simply be unsuited to take certain social and reproductive roles normatively taken by heterosexuals, and this must be understood by natalists. Notwithstanding, if homosexual individuals demonstrate abilities to act in the normal roles of mothers and fathers in heterosexual unions, and these unions can exist independent of romantic interests (practically impossible with the current social norms and divorce laws in the West), I do not argue for a prohibition against them taking such social or reproductive roles normally taken by heterosexuals.
Regarding the repeated claims associating homosexual male teleiophiles (i.e. homosexual men attracted to physically mature men) with pedophilia, a disproportionate number of male pedophiles may be homosexual pedophiles, but it does not follow that these homosexual pedophiles are simply a subset of homosexual teleiophiles. There is evidence based on genital responses to visual and auditory stimuli of 2,359 male subjects that teleiophilic homosexual men have no greater sexual attraction to children than teleiophilic heterosexual men do and that homosexual male pedophiles and hebephiles actually have less sexual attraction to adult men than heterosexual male pedophiles and hebephiles have to adult women (Blanchard et al., 2010). Very similar results, specifically regarding homosexual and heterosexual male teleiophiles, were obtained in an earlier study (Freund et al., 1973). Therefore, I see no reason to consider homosexual male teleiophiles inherently more likley than heterosexual male teleiophiles to be sexually interested in children. FYI: in the context of this article (the one you are reading right now), the word homosexual is shorthand for homosexual teleiophile, unless otherwise indicated.
Although no correlation between sexual orientation and an interest in propagandizing sexual behaviors to minors has been analytically determined to exist (to my knowledge), the stereotypes remain due to anecdotes of incidents with radical activists. Homosexuals and bisexuals must signal that they pose no such threat in order to cooperate. However, this is not enough for many conservatives, usually for religious reasons. If they are cognizant of one’s non-heterosexuality, the cost of attempting to cooperate with such religious conservatives is almost always greater than what might be gained from doing so. Therefore, such an attempt at cooperation, in that situational context, is not a rational course of action.
There are some individuals who do not want to merely refrain from cooperation with homosexuals but want to violently persecute them. Being an ethnic nationalist, I am often in disagreement with Dr. Jordan Peterson regarding politics. However, he articulates accurately that we all have a capacity for cruelty, what he calls a “shadow” or “dark side”. Homosexuals have often faced this dark side in bullies and authoritarians. Observing such a capacity for cruelty, I have realized that I must integrate my own “dark side”/shadow: my past failure to do so has caused me to lack self-respect and to feel vulnerable, resulting in my resort to rhetorical defenses which made me appear silly to some people. Later I realized the importance of integrating the shadow, as I heard Dr. Peterson explain it in roughly these terms: one must be able to be cruel, not because one wishes to be cruel but to avoid being a victim to those who are. Machiavelli was correct: “… love peace but know how to wage war” (Art of War: 1, 12).