If there's a difference between that phraseology, I don't mean it to be substantive--I agree with what you said. It's OP who rejects that premise.
It’s not a question of moral relativism. You’d have to argue that any behavior is a crime in order for it to be legitimate for perpetrators to suffer consequences. Otherwise, it is wrong that someone should suffer consequences, all else equal.
I like nachos. Tomorrow I might not like nachos. It is wrong in any society if my liking or disliking of nachos results in me being killed, bullied, shamed, etc. Any society that claims a right of legitimacy to impose social norms in this way on the liking or disliking of nachos is a morally wrong society. There’s no debate about this. You can either argue convincingly that nacho preference is a crime, or else any attempt to treat it like a crime is wrong.
Okay, but there was a time when homosexuality was a crime in the majority of Western countries, and in some places around the world, it still is a crime. What then/there?
Moral reasoning based on current law is partially circular reasoning, and also tends to ossify current law/state of moral progress.
One easy place to start-- are the laws are based on kinds of dubious claims that our own social and scientific history has rejected?
And at least in Africa, Western evangelicals have spent a lot of time and effort exporting their same stupid ideas about homosexuality. So our Western approaches should be pretty easy to copy-paste there. :)
Why should we consider the moral choices of a culture to which we do not belong wrong? What benefit comes to the people affected, or to us through this mental finger wag?
But, if I wanted to try to push back, ... your nachos require cheese. Cheese requires cows. Raising of cows are a major source of greenhouse gas etc... Therefore you should not be allowed to eat nachos as it's bad for society at large and you should be forced to stop eating them. (substitute beef or whale meat or whatever it takes to see the point).
Or are you making the claim that it is never morally justified for any action to be punished?