What do you think is the proper response to a toothpaste company that, before innocent videos or songs on YouTube, injects messages into children that dismantle the family?

Nothing is dismantling any family. Messages of Sabbath desecration or eating non-kosher food are many times more destructive. They are directed at everyone, not only at people who have "opposite" tendencies. There are such people and such couples in the population. Do you expect people not to relate to them? Will that preserve the family? Ignoring facts doesn’t make them disappear; it creates a reaction, frustration, and greater extremism on the other side. Compare this to the silencing that LGBTQ people use against voices like yours. Does that help them? It only creates extremism and foolish boycotts like this one.
And we haven’t even talked about how the method of boycotts can come back like a boomerang. At the next stage, secular people will boycott whoever appeals to kippah-wearers or to Haredim or to heterosexual couples. I’m not sure which population will come out on top from this whole collection of boycotts.

I’m not ignoring it, but I’m not willing to inject illnesses as though they were normal nature; rather, this requires treatment and attention like other problems.
As for the effectiveness of a boycott, that’s a separate discussion that I don’t think will bear fruit on WhatsApp…?.

A company that manufactures on the Sabbath is different from a company that advertises its product by means of the fact that it manufactures on the Sabbath..

The case Matan published is more similar to a case of a company that boasts that it manufactures on the Sabbath.

I disagree on both counts: even if they advertise on the Sabbath or by means of filming Sabbath desecrators, it still isn’t right to boycott them (for example, the national parks of the Society for the Protection of Nature, movie theaters and theaters, and so on). And here this is not advertising through a prohibition, but addressing couples of another kind (who presumably commit prohibitions in their homes—just like any photograph of people without kippot, who presumably commit prohibitions in their homes and outside them). Two men making sure that the girl in their home brushes her teeth are not committing any prohibition. And that is what the advertisement showed.

Y.,

An article from Walla!NEWS, “All the companies that support the LGBTQ strike, and is it permitted to strike? | The complete guide”:
<a href="https://news.walla.co.il/item/3174631?utm_source=whatsup&utm_medium=sharebuttonapp&utm_term=social&utm_content" rel="nofollow">https://news.walla.co.il/item/3174631?utm_source=whatsup&utm_medium=sharebuttonapp&utm_term=social&utm_content</a>

Here are a few more companies. Good luck.

By the way, supporting the LGBTQ strike is also not a prohibition, nor is it support for a prohibition. But precisely because of that, Y.’s comparison is correct.