To repeat myself, the glaring hole in the original article was the complete lack of any discussion about whether the legal changes to social policy he was advocating would be, on the whole, good or bad for society. He just assumed that if some people wanted to do these things, they should be allowed to do so

Well not quite but fair enough. He did leave out the impact on social fabric, but that's in part because the "impact on social fabrik" has been argued to death and there simply isn't any credible arguement to be had that any of the above would have a negative impact on social fabric