The episode demonstrates the dangers of letting government insert itself into the business of subsidizing the dissemination of speech and opinion, something that cannot be done in a principled way without offending either majority or minority opinion or both. That's when the controversy started. Conservative Christian groups sought to block the program. Bloomer's claim is strange. If she meant that once a presentation has been made it is impossible to offer counter-arguments against it, she is clearly wrong.
People offer counter-arguments to views presented earlier all the time.
Bloomer may have feared that once the idea of tolerance for gays is discussed it might catch on and tolerance might break out. Or she may have meant that any program acknowledging that homosexuals even exist should not be broadcast, fearing that talk about homosexuality will plant homosexual desire in the minds of people who never felt it before. Whatever Bloomer meant, clearly mere balance of competing viewpoints was not her goal. Her goal was to block any discussion about gays at all. Perhaps if tolerance were widely accepted it might lead to efforts to decriminalize sodomy.