Thank you for the answer,
if I may comment on what you wrote.
A. Regarding your statement that the State of Israel does not protect family values in any way—this is not precise. The insistence on divorce according to Jewish law, which still exists despite the great suffering it sometimes causes both sides, is nothing but protection of such values. (Officially this is under the framework of preserving the status quo, but again, in my opinion one cannot deny that religious insistence on these Jewish laws in the first place is also, or mainly, aimed at preserving family values.)
B. I am not sure adultery is a more serious blow to family values. Adultery is mainly lying and breach of commitment. The adulterer is not offering an alternative to the institution of the family, and besides that he is in any case usually condemned. Homosexuals, by contrast, promote a way of life that is an alternative to the traditional family way of life, and are even proud of it. That is a much greater threat.
C. If part of the public thinks this is proper, there is no right to prevent it? Here too I am not sure. There are always parts of the public who think certain things are proper, but public policy cannot take everyone into account. Would we agree to raise orphaned children to use light drugs because part of the population thinks that is acceptable? There is a question of balance here, of course. But I believe the consequences of the new family institution for our values are worse than the consequences of using light drugs.
I believe your position stems from the fact that you assume from the outset that there is no moral problem with such behavior, and therefore in your view this is nothing but discrimination arising from hatred of those who are different. What I am trying to point out is that there is a value question here. And as such, the majority of the public has the right to set policy that reflects certain values. That is completely justified coercion.

You’re pushing on an open door. Indeed, marriage and divorce according to Jewish law are also outrageous coercion in my view. The issue of drugs causes harm to society, and it is a state's role to prevent that. A democratic state is not supposed to impose ways of life on its citizens.
I indeed do not think homosexuality is a moral problem, but I do see it as a halakhic-religious problem. What I said does not stem from my attitude toward homosexuality but from my attitude toward the concept of the state and its functions.
Here it is not a matter of hatred of those who are different but of surrender to illegitimate pressure from religious people (perhaps among the religious it is hatred of those who are different, and this is not the place to elaborate).

Again, thank you for your response,
the problem is that a position of the kind you are defending here assumes that a concept like “harm” is an objective concept, whereas in fact the decision about what counts as harm, and especially the decision about which harms it is the state’s job to prevent its citizens from suffering, are normatively loaded decisions and reflect values.
Utopianly, perhaps one can speak about a state that imposes no value at all on its citizens. In practice, the state—every state—does this all the time. From your point of view, homosexuality and marriage according to Jewish law are a drop in the ocean of scandals of this kind, and there is no point in singling them out in particular.
Still, I think it outrages you specifically because you do not see homosexuality as a moral problem, and not because of your attitude toward the concept of the state. For people like me, who do see this as a moral problem, it is perfectly legitimate to demand that the state, which in any case imposes values all the time, should for once impose the right values.
In short, the real discussion here is about the morality or immorality of the phenomenon; everything else, including the functions of the state, is beside the point.