4 ms·

The problem with this logic is that by characterizing preferring one lifestyle to another as an "anti-X position" and therefore something that is by default wro

The problem with this logic is that by characterizing preferring one lifestyle to another as an "anti-X position" and therefore something that is by default wrong, we encourage the dismantling of our entire culture. If we are to say that the only acceptable view is that being gay is as good as being straight, then we must logically do the same for the following * Being transgender * Being a sex worker * Eating shit for sexual gratification (no chance of AIDS!) * Having sex with animals (without harming them) I'm not sure that any of the above are very immoral, but I'm not comfortable with teaching that they are ideal, or advisable. I'm also not comfortable with teaching children that becoming a sex worker is as good a career path as any other. We as a society need to maintain a balance between protecting everyone's rights, and allowing people to have their own personal tastes and opinions. This balance should be based on enforcing the most basic laws that guarantee a person's right to life and safety. Gay people should be free from threats of violence. But so should everyone else, including groups who will never be considered as oppressed by liberals, like nerds in high school. As for tastes and preferences, this isn't something we can decide in a top down way.

dllthomas 13y ago
"including groups who will never be considered as oppressed by liberals, like nerds in high school." Isn't that arguably a part of the anti-bullying push?
- yetanotherphd 13y ago
  The entire anti-bullying push is based on a narrative in which bullying results from our society being insufficiently inclusive. If people were more tolerant of differences, we are told, the motivation for bullying would go away. However this reasoning only applies to certain kinds of bullying, such as bullying of gays (and [1] argues it doesn't even apply in this case). Nerds are bullied because of their actual weakness, not because they are different per se. The sub-culture is a response to bullying, not vice versa. In order to deal with this kind of bullying, we would need a new narrative in which people have an innate tendency towards picking on other people, and that if not kept in check, this can reach to physical violence and other extremes. [1] http://owldolatrous.livejournal.com/14079.html http://owldolatrous.livejournal.com/14079.html

dllthomas 13y ago

"including groups who will never be considered as oppressed by liberals, like nerds in high school." Isn't that arguably a part of the anti-bullying push?

yetanotherphd 13y ago
The entire anti-bullying push is based on a narrative in which bullying results from our society being insufficiently inclusive. If people were more tolerant of differences, we are told, the motivation for bullying would go away. However this reasoning only applies to certain kinds of bullying, such as bullying of gays (and [1] argues it doesn't even apply in this case). Nerds are bullied because of their actual weakness, not because they are different per se. The sub-culture is a response to bullying, not vice versa. In order to deal with this kind of bullying, we would need a new narrative in which people have an innate tendency towards picking on other people, and that if not kept in check, this can reach to physical violence and other extremes. [1] http://owldolatrous.livejournal.com/14079.html http://owldolatrous.livejournal.com/14079.html