Excellent question. I claim no meaningful ‘universal’ definition for ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ which is why I generally use quotes around them in sentences. Any definition that you ascribe to these terms is contentious.

What is legal cannot be used a guideline for ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ because like any other human endeavor is will contain mistakes or artifacts of "trendy" thinking that later is viewed as either unjust or simply "wrong". On top of that there may be laws on the books that can be viewed by many as simply unjust when applied in certain circstances, with good reason.

In the end I submit to you that universal definitions for ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ simply do not exist, and therefore, you should not concern yourself with trying as it is a fools errand.

for me I use ‘like’ and ‘dislike’ as they are subjective, and I feel comfortable being accountable to my ‘like’/‘dislike’ positions.

As far as how the ‘state’ gets involved in these matters should be governed by the principle of promoting a substantially tolerant, permissive, and civil society. The ‘state’, as far as I can see, has no compelling interest in the issue of homosexuality any more than they have a compelling interest in heterosexuality. The sexual orientation of consenting partners is of no consequence to the ‘state’.