4 ms·
There's a huge difference between "policing of social norms" and equal rule of law for all regardless of who they choose to have sex with. Maybe you can argue
by imnotlost 6y ago
There's a huge difference between "policing of social norms" and equal rule of law for all regardless of who they choose to have sex with.
Maybe you can argue that it's fine for someone to choose not to be friends with gay people but it shouldn't be OK for the government withhold rights/law/healthcare/social security/education/electricity/water/etc because of it. Who cares if it's genetics or a choice.
- threatofrain 6y ago> Who cares if it's genetics or a choice. Society cares, that’s the point. Society cares about who you have sex with, and society cares about whether something is genetic. If society didn’t care we’d be having a different discussion.
- denkmoon 6y agoA segment of society. Other segments of society don't care. "Society" is not a homogenous blob, it's just 7 billion individuals.
- blacksmith_tb 6y agoClearly there are multiple societies, with varying cultural norms (as we can see from the range of opinions here). While you can't have societies without individuals obviously, you can only barely have individual humans without societies (and they're usually not doing too well, a few hermits and mystics notwithstanding).
- mrslave 6y ago> it's just 7 billion individuals Maximum deconstruction here, and a failure to recognize patterns. I wonder where this thinking will take us?
- rayiner 6y agoNeither of those things is okay, because sexual orientation is immutable, not a choice. As to things that are choices, such as polygamy and adultery, the government can certainly punish people for those, even in western countries. It could set the age of consent to 25 if it wanted to--it would certainly have a rational basis for doing so. That's true even in the west, much less anywhere else.
- tick_tock_tick 6y ago> Neither of those things is okay, because sexual orientation is immutable, not a choice. How do you actually know that? You can't just state something like that as a fact and assume people are going to accept it especially in response to an article call "No 'gay gene'".
- nicwilson 6y ago> because sexual orientation is immutable, Not entirely true, I remember there was a case where an English rugby player received a concussion and was put in an induced(?) coma and was gay after he woke up. However we certainly don't have the capability to change it.
- serverholic 6y agoI think you're interpreting immutable too literally.
- NateEag 6y agoI think OP should not have used "immutable" if it isn't what he meant.
- serverholic 6y agoI think you should try to be less of an autist and read into what people are trying to say.
- NoImmatureAdHom 6y agoIt's not clear that the drives that lead to polygamy or adultery are any more mutable than those that lead to homosexuality.
- danbruc 6y agoWhat is wrong with polygamy? And how do we know that this involves more free choice than to which sex one feels attracted?