4 ms·
> If you want to argue that gays are a special subset who (unlike all the other subsets) deserve not to have regulations go against their preferences, do it. Y
by aganders3 13y ago
> If you want to argue that gays are a special subset who (unlike all the other subsets) deserve not to have regulations go against their preferences, do it.
You don't get to state this as fact just because it helps your argument. I assume you're well aware people on the other side consider sexual orientation to be inherent, rather than a simple preference.
- yummyfajitas 13y agoI think it more likely than not that sexual preference is "inherent". I hold a similar view about risk preference, animal sex preference and mobility preference. To me, the concepts "simple preference" and "inherent" seem orthogonal, yet you seem to be implying they somehow conflict. Could you explain? If it turns out that risk preference or mobility preference is also "inherent", would that make Obamacare or mortgage subsidies/know your customer laws a violation of civil rights?
- aganders3 13y agoWell, if the difference is a semantic issue between us, then I'm not sure I can explain it. I believe sexual orientation is inherent in the the same way height, sex, or skin color is - e.g. I cannot simply choose to be black or live a "tall" lifestyle. If you think "risk preference" is an inherent trait in that way, then of course the ACA is unjust. I would disagree, but could be convinced given evidence. FWIW, I don't necessarily believe the ACA or the mortgage subsidy are correct or just. I won't comment on KYC laws since I am not familiar with them. As an aside: I don't think you're comparing homosexual relationships to bestiality, but you're getting close. I hope you understand why this could be offensive and non-productive in a conversation.
- icebraining 13y agoWell, marriage is still a preference. I don't think the issue is about reintroducing sodomy laws or something like that.
- aganders3 13y agoI'm fine with this position if you're advocating to remove government recognition of all marriages and "civil unions" entirely.
- icebraining 13y agoI'm not advocating for anything in the previous post. People are too quick to judge. I was explaining why it could be considered a preference. If you must know, I'm pro-gay marriage and against all civil marriage. And I have no position on the current issue.
- aganders3 13y agoSorry, I honestly didn't intend to judge or even imply you were advocating that. What I meant is that I agree marriage is a preference, but only if there are no additional benefits or rights bestowed (by the government) upon those entering the marriage.